TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DIA [ 1996 (2) TMI 136 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , the pre-deposit to maintain the appeal is not to be equated to the payment of duty to invite the provisions of Section 11B of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order now passed invoking Section 11B of the Act is unsustainable. Going by the admitted fact that the pre-deposit was made in terms of Section 35F of the Act, the question of invoking Section 11B of the Act to reject the claim of the petitioner as time-barred, does not arise. As pointed out in the circular dated 2-1-2002, when the claim can be made even by a simple letter along with attested xerox copy of the order in appeal, the question of the Department further adjudicating the matter invoking Section 11A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim for refund of the pre-deposit amount paid in the appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, consequent on the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai on 14-11-2006 [2011 (209) E.L.T. 211 (Tri.)], resulting in the cancellation of the order of demand and thereby remanding the matter back to the Joint Commissioner concerned for fresh consideration. It is seen that by order dated 5-9-2005, in Stay Order No. 707 of 2005 in Appeal No. 556/05, the CESTAT directed the petitioner to pre-deposit the amount of ₹ 50,000/-, considering the fact that the petitioner had already deposited ₹ 26,20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE, Hyderabad v. I.T.C. Ltd.), and circular dated 2-1-2002 in F. No. 225/37/2K - CX 8A by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi and the Circular dated 8-12-2004 in Circular No. 802/35/2004-CX wherein the Commissioners of Central Excise were directed to advise the officials to order the refund of pre-deposit amount in terms of Section 35F of the Act. The circular referred to the decision of the Supreme Court directing return of the pre-deposit amount within three months of the disposal of the appeals in the assessee s favour. 6. It is seen from the compilation of the decisions of the Apex Court that in the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. I.T.C. Ltd., reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. 15, the Apex Court co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ple letter from the person who has made such deposit requesting the return of the amount, along with an attested Xerox copy of the Order-in-appeal or CEGAT order consequent to which the deposit made becomes returnable and an attested xerox copy of the Challan in Form TR6 evidencing the payment of the amount of such deposit, addressed to the concerned Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or Customs, as the case may be, will suffice for the purpose. All pending refund applications already made under the relevant provisions of the Indirect Tax Enactment for return of such deposits and which are pending with the authorities will also be treated as simple letters asking for return of the deposits, and will be processed as such. Simila ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
